Posted on 10/20/2014 12:55:55 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Former border patrol agent, convicted on drug charges, appeals to high justices after lower courts bar him from selling weapons.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal prohibition on firearms for felons terminates all ownership rights.
The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a Florida man convicted on drug charges and forced to give up his firearms under federal law could sell the guns or transfer ownership to his wife or a friend.
The court agreed to hear an appeal filed by Tony Henderson, a former US border patrol agent who was convicted of distributing marijuana and other drug offenses in 2007 and sentenced to six months in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I agree with you. But don’t you think that punishment for heinous acts of violence are not severe? Basically any convict sent to prison for a felony gets thrown into an environment that promotes more criminal activity, and teaching how to perform other criminal activity. Not all of the prison population is beyond help. Just throwing criminals into these prisons is not helping most. It’s doing the opposite. Some of them go in barely adults that made horrible mistakes, were with the wrong people, or were misled. The prison system hones their mind, and eventually tempers their soul in a permanent state of evil thoughts and acts.
Like I’m saying, people that commit heinous cold blooded crimes should be locked away forever and forgotten. What about the stupid kid that is pressured or coerced into driving a getaway car for a stupid gas station hold up? Someone gets shot, the kid goes to prison without a chance. The other prisoners eat him alive , and teach him what they know about crime. He may want to try to do something productive with his life when he gets out, so he goes to try to find a job and turn his life around, but all he runs into are brick walls. Desperation and hopelessness on every side so this time the kid is the one in the store holding a gun to someones head. Our prison system promotes this type of scenario.
However, stripping felons of their rights on a case to case basis using logic and common sense is not wrong to do. But on the other hand, stripping all felons of their rights regardless of the crime and situation is wrong IMHO. Our entire prison system is completely FUBAR is the point I’m trying to make. Some of these people deserve second chances, otherwise how can they get away from it all? It certainly isn’t impossible to do, but it is very very hard. In fact, I know a few people that have committed felonies, nothing like murder or rape of course. I know two I went to high school with, and spent a lot of time around through mutual friends. They both wised up after jail, have paid off the victims of the property damage caused, never physically hurt anyone. One has married and has an awesome baby boy. The other has worked full time for 4 or 5 years now at a job where he has been promoted multiple times, but it’s still a low wage job. He can’t find anything better even though he has skills and learned good work ethic, because of a stupid mistake when he was fresh out of high school. Both wish they had never done what they did. They want to be successful and be happy, and every time I see either they mention how dumb and stupid they were. But they are felons forever stripped of rights that I and many of their other friends enjoy. But now they have proven themselves, both are productive decent men.
Perhaps without the time served they would still be doing criminal things on a nightly basis. Maybe it worked for them, but they are still being punished after paying their dues, and have suffered because of it for years. Try raising a family when you were a convicted felon so long ago it’s irrelevant to everyone around you, your loved ones, and employer. But still not be able to get ahead, anywhere. Because FELON comes up on any background check. Can’t buy a gun to protect your family. Can’t vote to protect your family. You get pulled over for a tail light out and the cops assume you are committing crimes so you are detained and questioned until they finally realize you aren’t doing anything wrong. No matter what you do, you cannot get away from it. Twenty more years and those two will still be getting turned down by employers, gun stores, and suspected by police. All because of a stupid mistake that they paid for, made amends for, and have been forgiven by those that care about them. They’ve done much much more good then evil in their lives. Yet it’s okay to strip their rights away so they are just a shell of a free American citizen? I will never be able to agree with that.
But, back to the main point. Yes, SOME FELONS SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHTS. But not all, is my point. The people I referred to in my long post (I have a habit of this) are not fictional in any way. That’s not hypothetical. That and some family members have had troubles with the law. They are the lucky few I know that have done good with themselves despite being felons. It starts with a stupid mistake like they made, but the system is designed to keep felons committing felonies.
That embodiment misses the argument entirely. The argument is whether or not the "you will lose your rights for life" can be applied to a right expressed in the constitution (be it RKBA, or freedom of assembly, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), beyond the period of government supervision imposed under a felony statute.
You are simply asserting that No. 1 is constitutional, without examining its contents.
You are pretty good at pounding the table, but I haven't seen a smidgen of discussion from you that advances the argument.
No. The purchase and possession of a firearm is regulated by atf and fbi.
Those who have had domestic violence misdemeanor charges expunged from their records are denied the right to purchase a firearm.
A judge cannot give back what he did not take away.
It is purely an administrative action. The regulating authority has been instructed by Congress to deny access to Commerce (firearms) when they have a felony or a misdemeanor of domestic violence on their record.
If the agency were not instructed to do so, many would end their
sentences and have the ability to purchase a firearm restored.
I understand what you are saying, and I'm not arguing that the enforcers are even acting within the limits allowed by law. But in the general case you cited, the enforcer's error and mistreatment depends on some action in a courtroom.
And assuming for the sake of argument that there are cases where atf denies approval, and the only thing on the record is an arrest (no conviction, or even a finding of innocence, or even an opportunity for hearing), my point was mostly one of legal grammar. A "sentence" is handed down by the court or a quasi court. Denial of approval is not a "sentence" in the vernacular.
Triggering the felon in possession law requires a sentence, imposed by a judge.
Gotcha.
Damn sure are some folks here I’d love to have a drink with while discussing these tricky issues.
This is a great topic.
"Turning your phrase back on you": AKA putting words in the mouths of other posters, and misrepresenting their posts.
Which is OK in your gasbag opinion. LOL! :)
I think everyone agrees that "you’re not very good at this", you're just another prolific, hyperbolic gasbag last-worder, as Cboldt is finding out to his chagrin.
And I hope everyone else around the table are felons. That way if it’s turns into a knock down drag out brawl, I’m the only one packing heat!!! Lol
I'm glad you brought this up.
Impris at Hillsdale has a great article on the rise of "administrative law":
The History and Danger of Administrative Law [More Precisely, Administrative "Power"]
Hillsdale College ^ | September 2014 | PHILIP HAMBURGER
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3214734/posts
[T]he rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism...
[O]rdinarily kings bound their subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations...dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers...their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts.
[D]efenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.
These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged...Magna Carta in 1215...Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes...in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission...English constitutional law.
Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. [T]wo of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power [are] delegation and procedural rights.
=============================
Of course, Fascists and gasbags (but I repeat myself...) are IN LOVE with "administrative law", as we can see by the above post by SampleGas, and in many of his prior postings on this thread:
SampleMan wrote - Criminal code does include mandatory minimum sentences and punishments, which are valid. If I get 13 points on my license in a year, I lose it without a judge ever being involved.
Chagrin is the sensation you get when you discover you've done or said something you wish you hadn't. For example, a person can feel chagrin for being caught claiming a reference says something it doesn't say.
One of the dirty little secrets of the American Criminal Jesters system is the astounding rate at which "crime" is plea-bargained.
If you tried to justify what's going on with that to a Founding Father, I imagine that he'd backhand you till you bled.
The State uses its enormous power and resources to squash the accused, just like any old Tyranny would. Defy their vile system? Prepare to be made an example of.
Or for someone caught ignoring examples contrary to their arguments... LOL! :)
I know how tempting and fun it is to play flame war - and I'm pretty good at it myself (loved to yank the chain of nopardons and Howlin', and others - had WAY too much fun during the Harriet Miers debacle). But one has to admit, flame war is part of the "noise" side of "signal to noise" that exists in any forum, and a person not only will come off as wiser and tempered by limiting his indulgence in adding "noise," but will also increase his value as a forum participant.
You also have to remember that back in the days of the Founders, you COULD make a fresh start. The all-knowing, all-pervasive Police State didn't follow you everywhere you went. The law-n-order Fascists will never admit to this reality, or the history, either.
You accused me of "making shit up". I deny doing that. Please point it out.
Yep. Bad men were killed on sight on the frontier. No one cared, because people knew it was the right thing. Buried in unmarked graves all over the deserts and plains. It would be like that still, however technological advances have allowed the weak and small minded to survive, and breed. Whereas they would have died young, before spreading their ilk.
The state legislatures have standard laws, not administrative laws (like EPA mandates or ATF rules) that penalize felons with a forfeiture of rights for life.
So once again, you drag out another straw man to mercilessly club. I think you've destroyed 5 or 6 of them already. I presume you couldn't figure out an angle to position yourself against the killing of puppies.
You sure do like that word “gasbag”. Did you fall out of love with “poopy pants”?
Your level of argument is stuck between inept and spacious. The only ability you shown so far is in the merciless slaughter of one straw man after another.
So your definition of your own term, “First class citizen” is what you determine it to be.
Very slick SimpleMan...
Any punishment constitutes a loss of freedom, enumerated or not, right? Can we agree on that? So if punishing a criminal is constitutional, then the question is duration of sentence. You assert that the sentence of punishment must equate to a period of incarceration, and cannot be more than that. I see no constitutional basis for that assertion. The constitution does not require that punishment be incarceration, nor does it directly limit the duration of punishment for felonies; so how do you get to where you are at logically?
I appreciate your opinion, and as a nonconstitutional issue, dealing simply with what is just, I think there are logical points that we could agree on. But I can find nothing that limits a state from passing a life sentence that limits a person from working with children, driving heavy equipment, shooting fireworks, or possessing a firearm. Can such restrictions be unreasonable? Sure they can.
You are simply asserting that No. 1 is constitutional, without examining its contents.
True, it is certainly possible that a case could be made for No.1 being cruel and unusual. If that were the argument being made on this thread, I would be inclined to agree on some felonies and disagree on some felonies, but that is not the argument being made. The argument is that a life-long restriction of rights is in itself unconstitutional, and there is simply no basis to support that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.